An existing wood fence also exists along the south and east property lines (see Sheet SR1, Site <br />Plan). The existing six-foot fence is semi-private (the boards are offset to allow space between <br />boards); this spacing reduces the ability of the fence to attenuate sound. <br />Staff agreed with the applicant that the U-Haul facility will not be particularly loud, but <br />concluded that noise generated by the exterior storage units, paired with the visual impacts <br />related to the outdoor storage of large trucks, warranted the building of a new solid 8' fence in <br />place of the existing fence. To compensate for those impacts staff proposed the following <br />condition: <br />A new 8-foot high solid wood fence (no gaps between boards) shall be constructed along <br />the eastern property line (beginning where the existing concrete wall ends), and along the <br />entirety of the southern property line. <br />The Hearings Official finds that the height and composition of the fence is the only relevant <br />objection raised by opponents. While the Hearings Official is sympathetic to the sound and <br />visual impacts that commercial uses have on surrounding neighbors, the evidence and analysis <br />by staff persuade me that those impacts can be mitigated and are not of sufficient magnitude <br />to require that the application be denied. At the same time, the record shows that the existing <br />mitigations on the subject property (fence, wall and tree plantings) were designed to <br />compensate for the prior retail grocery use that allowed a much higher average daily vehicle <br />trip count than what the applicant is proposing. Although the neighbors are accustomed to the <br />non-use of the former grocery store, the applicant's proposal is much less intensive than that <br />former use and will reasonably require less mitigation. <br />As for visual impacts, the testimony of both the opponents and the applicant persuade me that <br />an 8' fence will not provide much measurable visual relief for neighbors given the difference in <br />grade. The Western Red Cedars will be more effective. Therefore, I find that the fence is not <br />warranted to mitigate visual impacts. <br />As for sound impacts, the evidence and testimony show that the cedars will help significantly. <br />At the hearing, the applicant also volunteered to reconfigure the existing 6' fence from a good <br />neighbor fence into a solid fence style. The Hearings Officer favors that solution. Such a - <br />change will help with sound buffering. While an 8' fence might be marginally better, I am not <br />convinced that an extra 2' in height will help with sound mitigation that will be significantly <br />detectable to the neighbors. For these reasons I find that a condition requiring the existing 6' <br />fence to be a solid wood configuration (as described by staff) will satisfy this criterion. <br />c) if the proposal involves a residential use, the project is designed, sited and/or <br />adequately buffered to minimize off-site impacts which could adversely affect the <br />future residents of the subject property. <br />This standard does not apply as no residential use is proposed. <br />Hearings Official Decision (CU 16-1; SR 16-2) 6 <br />232